Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  June 27, 2010 2:00pm-3:00pm EDT

2:00 pm
stay tuned for fox where more news is on the way. >> chris: i'm chris wallace and this is fox news sunday. >> a war time change in battlefield commanders. the show down over a supreme court nominee. we'll discuss those with two senators who are leading voices on national security and who will be questioning elena kagan this week. democrat diane feinstein and lindsey graham. only on fox news sunday. plus our panel analyzes the way forward in afghanistan and handicaps kagan's chances to win a seat on the court. also some are calling him the front runner for the gop presidential nomination. we'll talk 2010 and 2012 with former governor and perhaps future candidate mike huckabee. all right now. on fox news sunday. hello again from fox news in
2:01 pm
washington. we'll get to the change of commanders in afghanistan and confirmation hearings for elena kagan in a moment. but first, president obama is in canada at the g-20 summit where the u.s. is at odds with key allies about whether it's more important to keep push ago global recovery or to start cutting huge government debt. fox news correspondent wendell goler is live in toronto. who is winning the art? >> president obama says one lesson of the great depression is you don't in this casele and dime your way out of a depression. u.s. officials say no other developed nation is as financially strapped as greece with the possible exception of spain, but there is still no meeting of the minds here in toronto on continued stimulus spending and the president found himself having the same debate he had among g8 leaders that he has with republicans at home about whether the economic boost is enough to justify the debt.
2:02 pm
the leaders of germany, france, britain and japan all plan substantial budget cuts and in the case of britain, tax hikes as well. mr. obama got more support when the leaders of 12 developing nations joined the group and the g8 became the g-20. argentina president says the european focus on budget cuts is, quote, absolutely wrong. outside and well away from the talks, protesters clashed with police, torched cars and smashed windows. the anti--globalization demonstrations have become a regular feature of this annual gathering. another reason the canadians spent more than $900 million on security alone. chris? >> chris: wendell golan reporting from the g-20 summit in toronto. thanks for that. on to the other big stories we're following. monday's supreme court hearings for elena kagan and the firing of a top u.s. commander in afghanistan. joining us are two senators leading the debate on both issues, diane feinstein and
2:03 pm
lindsey graham. welcome back. >> thank you. >> chris: let's start with afghanistan. at the end of this week with mccrystal out and petraeus in, senator feinstein what, do we need to do differently to win the war? >> well, i don't pretend to be a general. i would say this, 40% of the territory is either taliban controlled or contested. in kandahar, it's probably 50% of the area. the taliban, in my view, is one part terrorist group, one part narco cartel today. afghanistan is still producing 90% of the opium/heroin in the world. it is a big problem. and i think that the surge really has to be brought to southern afghanistan and that's where the battle is going to be against the taliban. that's my view. you have a weak central government. it has to be but the tressed and has to become stable. has to be willing to pick up.
2:04 pm
the training is on target and now i understand as of yesterday, that the training of the military police will be on target. so those are two good signs and some difficulties. >> chris: senator graham, do you expect general petraeus to make big changes once he takes over in afghanistan from relaxing, expanding the rules of engagement to maybe bigger changes in strategy? >> i think you'll look at the rules of engagement, they're sort of a common view that the rules of engagement hamper military operations that we've gone too far the other way. but i'll leave that up to the general. he certainly mastered that stuff. counter insurgency will continue. my big concern is -- as we move forward is the civilian side going to change. we've got a dysfunctional relationship between the military civilian components. that's essential to winning a counter insurgency. the ambassador is a fine man, has a poor working relationship with president karzai, that's
2:05 pm
true of holbrook. can they function together with general "metamorphoses"? that's one thing -- petraeus. we've got to clarify this withdrawal date of 2011. if it's a goal where we'll all try to start transferring power over to the afghans, i'm okay with that. if it's a date where people are going to begin to leave no matter what, a predetermined withdrawal date, that, in my view, will doom this operation. >> chris: there are a couple of points you make. let me drill back on them. on the question of replacing the civilian side, we're talking about ambassador eichenberry and special envoy richard holbrook. do you expect the president to get rid of them? was petraeus given any assurances that he would get his own civilian team when he takes over? >> i don't know, but i know that the team they have were not working well. the releasing of the memo from the embassy that the surge wouldn't work because karzai is so corrupt. this is a chance to start over, completely. the military civilian relationship is very important.
2:06 pm
i'll leave that up to the president. but i'm very concerned that nothing changes on the civilian side. let me just say again -- i'm not a general either, but i know this, if you're sitting down with a tribal leader and everybody in afghanistan believes that we're going to begin to leave in 2011, july no matter what, it's going to be hard to win over people on the fence and that's got to change or we're going to lose. >> chris: now, let me just ask one more question, i'll bring you into this, senator feinstein, you say you'll leave that to the president. one thing you haven't left to the president is you say he should tell vice president biden to shut up in terms of saying that come july 2011, a lot of people are going to be leaving the country. >> i said it tongue in cheek. there is two things here. if it's the policy and he's echoing the policy, the policy needs to change. is he saying what the policy is, we're going to leave in large numbers july 2011? you can bet on it. if that's the policy, that will doom this operation. if it's not the policy, he shouldn't be saying it.
2:07 pm
my belief is that he thinks it's the policy. rahm emanuel said last week it's the policy. i really don't know. if general petraeus is given the challenge of turning afghanistan around and the enemy believes we're going to leave next summer no matter what or start to leave, it's going to be very hard for him or anyone else to win. >> chris: senator feinstein? >> i have great respect for general petraeus. i think he really should be command presence of all of it. i think ten years -- >> chris: over the civilians? >> over the team. if the team isn't right, i think petraeus' views should be taken into consideration and observed by the administration. this is kind of, if you will, not a last ditch stand, but it is a major change in the middle of the surge and i think you put the general in, he should make the call. if he can't work with the ambassador, the ambassador should be changed. if he can't work with holbrook, that should change. i mean, i think we put all of our eggs in the petraeus basket
2:08 pm
at this stage. >> chris: let me quickly follow up on that. if petraeus comes to the president in the spring of 2011 and says, you know, this july deadline, i need six more months, should that -- >> i would say give it to him. absolutely. now, let's talk about the deadline. this is a transition point toward the beginning of a withdrawal or a draw down as petraeus said in his transcript before the armed services. and i think he has flexibility, realistically. ten years is a long time to fight a war, particularly with what happened before the ten years. so we need to understand that to get the military trained, get the government on-line, secure and stabilize and i think do away with the drugs to a great extent, because the drugs are now fueling the taliban. >> chris: you are also both members of the senate judiciary committee, which tomorrow begins confirmation hearings on supreme
2:09 pm
court nominee elena kagan. senator graham, what is your single biggest concern about kagan? what do you need to clear up before you can decide whether or not to vote for her? >> i can accept that she's liberal. she has a liberal activist background politically. she's embraced liberal causes. she has a liberal philosophy when it comes to the law. she's a very qualified person academically well grounded. her hero in the law, the judge that she admires the most is judge barak from israel, who personifies liberal activism. not just except left of center, main stream liberal judicial philosophy, i need to be sure that her activist background will not be taken to the court and when she puts on the robe, that she will try to enact through being a judge the liberal policy -- >> chris: you know what she's going to say. she'll say we'll apply the law. >> i want to hear why she picked this guy in israel to be her judicial hero because he said some things way out of the american main stream.
2:10 pm
so she'll have to convince me that all of this liberalism that she's lived with all her life can be put in her proper place and when she gets to be a judge, she'll be left of center. >> chris: senator feinstein, there are some liberal groups who are worried about kagan and her record. let's put something on the screen. they note she supported a ban on partial birth abortions. she argues for strong executive powers. she says enemy combatants can be held indefinitely. are you convinced that if confirmed, she will vote with the liberal wing of the court? >> well, i'm not going to get into whether she votes with the liberal wing of the court. i am going to get into that i believe she's in the main stream of thinking, of legal thinking in the united states. i believe she is superbly qualified. i believe drift net has been out to find some disqualifying factor and it hasn't been found. now, i admire lindsey graham. i think lindsey graham is a very
2:11 pm
good senator. that doesn't mean anything should be taken from it by my party. i wouldn't expect to be criticized because i admire lindsey graham. so i think -- >> chris: i think there is a compliment in there somewhere. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i think this woman, as solicitor general, true, she's not an appellate court judge. every other justice is an appellate court judge. this is refresh to go bring in someone i think with her background, which is the background of regular people, a young woman who has exceeded herself, associate domestic policy advisor in the white house, solicitor general of the united states. this is a very impresssive record and that's what we judge people on. not that she said this one time or that one time. >> chris: let me ask you about another aspect of this, senator
2:12 pm
feinstein, because in 1995, as you well know, kagan wrote a law review article in which she said this: subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and holly charade in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints. now i know there is going to be a lot of joking on the committee. well, she said that when she wasn't a nominee and stuff. why not hold her to accounts and say, and press her to be more forth coming in her views? >> i believe this is going to come up at the hearing and she is very likely to be pressed for her views. >> chris: what if she says, well, i -- >> doesn't matter. we all read it. it was very precise. she expressed her very strong views that a nominee should be more forth coming, we should be more pressing in our questions and -- >> chris: so you're going to hold her to that? >> i suspect members will hold her to this. >> chris: senator graham? >> well, i expect that she will
2:13 pm
have a reevaluation of that statement once she's on the hot seat. >> chris: confirmation conversion. >> let me talk about the war. she certainly has taken some positions and i expect a liberal judge to take. replacing judge stevens. i don't think there will be a great ideological change. but she said and done things as solicitor general that gives me great comfort. she said nice things about me, i appreciate it. but the one thing that i think we made news this morning, she suggested that afghanistan, this is our last best chance to get it right and general petraeus represents our best chance. both of us agree he ought to have his best chance and that means he needs a team he can work with and when it comes to deadlines, we need to take that off his back. so i stand with diane feinstein that give this general the best chance to win, taking the july date and changing it so he's not hampered. when it comes to the supreme court, we'll have a challenging hearing and i think she'll do well. but she's going to have to earn
2:14 pm
her way onto the court. >> chris: let's talk about that, 'cause i think the conventional wisdom is that unless you she really messes up in these hearings, she'll get confirmed. >> i was in the game of 14, extraordinary circumstances, the new test of whether a filibuster should be had. i haven't seen extraordinary circumstances that would justify a filibuster yet. but the one thing that bugs me about her is that when she embraces judge barak from israel and the way he thinks and the way he writes as her hero, that to me is embracing liberal activism. not main stream liberalism and she's going to have to explain that to me and other members of the committee. >> chris: if she does not explain that sufficiently that, would be an extraordinary circumstance? >> i don't know if it rises to that. it will be a problem for her getting my vote and it will be a problem for a lot of moderate democrats and this policy at harvard about not allowing military recruiters to come to the law school is going to be problematic for most americans. she'll have to explain that. but given everything i know today, she is well qualified,
2:15 pm
but she has a lot to answer for and the president won the election, to my conservative friends, you should expect liberals to be picked by obama. but you should expect us to do our job and that's not replace our judgment or his to make sure she's qualified and not an activist. that's what we'll do. >> chris: would you agree, senator feinstein, it's her nomination to lose at this point, or her seat to lose? >> i think that's accurate. i think most members see nothing that's disqualifying in her background, in her actions, in her service, and she has served and i think she served with distinction. she's been found well qualified by the american bar association. she will bring, i think, a new breath into the court. it will be a main stream breath. it will not be far right. it will not be far left. it will be in the middle. >> chris: okay. we got two minutes left. i want to ask you each a question on a separate subject. you were talking to the white house that would allow the
2:16 pm
closing of guantanamo bay. is that compromise -- are those negotiations dead? >> they're on life support. i've said if we changed our habeas laws, if we changed our statutes to be more national security con send trick to embrace the american people, you could close guantanamo bay, open up a jail in america and be safe. that would be good policy. i agree with the president that keeping the jail open hurts our efforts overseas. it is used against us by our enemies, our allies do it. >> chris: that compromise is? >> is stuck. i would like the white house to act on the proposals i've given them about changing our laws. i think all things being equal, if you could close walk safely, it would help the overall war effort, but there is not a whole lot of energy coming out of the white house to do that and i'd like to meet him in the middle. >> chris: senator feinstein, one of your other hats that you wear is chairman of the senate intelligence committee, director of national intelligence blair has been fired, another is
2:17 pm
resigning, meanwhile house and senator democrats are deadlocked over the intel reform bill and the whole question of congressional i don't think sight of spy agencies, how quickly will you get this resolved and how quickly are you going to confirm so that we have a director of national intelligence? >> the process has begun. he has received the questions. >> chris: general clapper? >> yes, friday i learned the questions have been earned. they were at the white house. we would expect to receive them this week. we can move. i have requested that the president call the speaker and try to move our intelligence bill. the reason the speaker has a problem with it is because we removed two things, which the white house found to be vetoable. one was an extension of notification on certain very sensitive matters to all members rather than the gang of eight. the second was government accountability office, we called the gao, oversight, which was amath ma to the white house.
2:18 pm
we took that out. the bill passed the senate. our committee and the senate unanimously. we've conferenced it with preconferenced with the house committee. we believe we're in agreement. we're ready to move. if the speaker will allow them to go to conference, then -- >> chris: real quickly, will you hold up confirmation hearings for clapper until you get resolution on the intel report? >> i've asked the president would please talk to the speaker. if he does that, i will move ahead. >> chris: all right. senator feinstein, senator graham, thank you both. thank you, senator graham, for telling the headline writers what the headline was today. thank you both and we'll be watching. we should say, you can watch coverage of the kagan confirmation hearing starting at noon monday on fox news channel with bret baier and megyn kelly anchoring our coverage and the two senators will be asking tough questions.
2:19 pm
governor mike huckabee and the midterm elections and his own political future. we'll be right back.
2:20 pm
2:21 pm
2:22 pm
>> chris: this week the new yorker of all magazines raises the possibility tormenter governor mike huckabee is the gop's best hope for the 2012 presidential nomination. so it seemed like a good time to have him on the program to talk some politics. mike huckabee, a fox news contributor, joins us from our new york studio and governor, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thank you very much, chris. good to be with you. >> chris: before with you get to 2012, let's talk about the election this november. how much trouble do you think the president and democrats are
2:23 pm
in right now? >> i think they're in a lot of trouble. the latest poll showed there is a 60% dissatisfaction rate with the american people feeling we're on the wrong track and when you have that overwhelm ago number and the democrats on the white house, the house and the senate, that does not bode well for the elections. and this year republicans have a real opportunity if they put forth a good message, and remind americans they're not the party that is in power that's led them to that 60% wrong track answer, i think it's going to be a terrific year. i think the republicans get the house back and get real close, if not overtake the senate. >> chris: let's look at the poll you're referring to. this is the "wall street journal" poll that came out this week that indicates big problems for the president and democrats. take a look. for the first time in this poll, most people disapprove of the job mr. obama is doing than approve. as you pointed out, 62% now feel the country is on the wrong track. that's the most since the 2008 election and only one third
2:24 pm
think the economy will get better over the next year. why do you think, governor, that people are losing faith in this president? >> they continue to look at the reality of numbers. every month our job numbers continue to hover with about a 10% unemployment. we were told that if we did this ridiculous stimulus package and spent nearly a trillion dollars that we were going to keep unemployment below 8%. well, that didn't happen. and i think it also is indicative of the fact that people have lost confidence that this president is capable of the kind of executive leadership that we need in a crisis. we're seeing what's happening on the gulf coast. it's not a pretty sight. and in part because there is no real clear command, control, and communication going on. those are the three fundamentals you've got to have in the midst of a crisis and a disaster. none of those things are really in clarity at this point. people see that. they watch this government take more than 60 days and still don't have a solid game plan of
2:25 pm
protecting the coast, which involves both the environment and the economy of the gulf. >> chris: now, you just said a moment ago that republicans have to remind the voters the fact that they're not in charge of the white house, house and the senate. is that enough or do they have to affirmatively say, we offer something different and also that they have learned their lesson from the mistakes of 2006 and 2008? >> i think republicans need to walk the sawdust trail. they need to repent for the spending that they were responsible for. they need to apologize and repent for the tarp bill which i still believe was a big huge mistake and only set up the further bailouts that happened when barak obama and the democrats did take full power. the republicans can't rely on we're not the other guys, as a reason to get elected. they do have to say that they will focus on getting rid of these run away deficits, that they will begin to trim down the debt and not put so much of a
2:26 pm
burden on future generations and grandchildren. we can't be the generation that does the polar opposite of our parents' generation that we call the greatest generation and we call them that because they sacrificed themselves so their kids would have is a better life. we're the generation that looks like now are sacrificing our kids so that we can have the best life and not have to pay for our own sins. that's just wrecklessly irresponsible and it certainly unamerican from the standpoint of our history as a nation. >> chris: governor, let's turn to your political future. where are you on the idea of running for president in 2012? >> as i've said to so many people, and i get asked the question, it doesn't matter where i am, i was even asked a taiwan a few weeks ago and they said, are you running for president? i said, if i was, i wasn't going to announce it in taipei. >> chris: this is fox news sunday. >> and if i were going to announce it today, i can't think of a better place to do it, chris, than with you on the fox network. but having said that, i have
2:27 pm
been very adamant that no decision like this would be, should be, or could be made until after the 2010 elections, that's where our focus needs to be. what happens after that, god only knows and he hasn't told anyone yet. >> chris: but clearly you're leaving the door open? >> i haven't closed the door. i think that would be foolish on my part, especially when poll after poll shows there is a strong sentiment out there, i end up leading a lot of the polls. i'm the republican that clearly at this point does better against obama than any other republican. i'm not totally unaware of that. but that's a long way from making a decision to run for president. i've been there, done that. have a whole warehouse full of t-shirts to prove it. so it's not like i don't understand something about what this endeavor would take and just because some polls a year and a half out show that there is some strong support and there would be maybe some momentum, that's not reason enough.
2:28 pm
i still have some debt left from the last campaign that i didn't even know i had 'til it was well over. so there is just a lot of consideration. but for me, the focus is doing what i'm doing, trying to do it well. one of those things is to enjoy what i'm doing, which i am wonderfully enjoying, doing television and radio and commentary and that may be where i have, but i'm not ruling anything out at this point. >> chris: in the aforementioned new yorker magazine article, you got into something of a dustup with the gay rights community. in the article you say this about gay marriage: we can get into the ick factor, but two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn't work the same. a group called the human rights campaign responded, ick is certainly an appropriate way to describe mr. huckabee's mind going into sex when all that we're asking for is our equality. your response? >> that term actually comes from a gay magazine called the edge
2:29 pm
in which the author, joseph issuentrot interviewed professor from one of barak obama's colleagues, university of chicago, she uses the term, projective disgust, he, in the interview, coined this phrase, it's in the article that he wrote in the interview with her, that phrase was not mine. it actually is a phrase that exists within the gay community. but somehow it's okay if they talk about it. but if someone else talks about it, it's offbounds and it's interesting, the american spectator, i thought joseph lawler did a wonderful aanalysis of the hypocrisy and the did you policity of those who want to on one hand push this issue, but then they really don't want their own discussion to be brought into the public square. it's a little bit disingenuous on their part to make it. it's not the big issue for me. but if i'm asked about it, i try to be honest, that i'm standing where most of the american public stands and that is for traditional marriage of one man,
2:30 pm
one woman, and by the way, chris, that's been on the ballot in 31 states and every one of the states, including left wing states like maine and california, it's been affirmed when the people themselves had a chance to vote for it. >> chris: we only got a couple of minutes left. let's do a lightning round. quick questions, quick answers about some of the other potential republican candidates out there. mitt romney, you said recently he's always trying to figure out where he stands on issues. >> well, what i mean is even on the health care bill, the massachusetts health care bill essentially is the blueprint for obama acare. that's going to be an issue he'll have to confront. there is no doubt in my mind that he's running. i think he's a formidable candidate. i don't think anybody can dismiss him because he has the organization, he's got the money. he's got sort of the inside track with a lot of the republican establishment. >> chris: sarah palin? lightning round, does she have the experience and the knowledge to be president? >> she's got the fire, the energy, and i think there are a lot of republicans who love her,
2:31 pm
would support her and she would be a very strong presence in a presidential primary. >> chris: indiana governor mitch daniels, you didn't like it when he proposed recently a, quote, truce on social issues. >> i'm a big fan of mitch daniels and i don't want anyone to swept that statement that i made as i somehow think that he's lacking in presidential temper. i think he could be one of our most qualified potential candidates. he's a great manager. i just don't want him to back away from issues that will energize and have energized 40 to 50% of the republican base. you can't do that and win the primary and win the general election. >> chris: finally, jeb bush, the former governor of florida, this week blasted president obama for always blaming bush's brother, president george w. bush, for all the problems that obama, quote, inherited. >> i love jeb bush. he's one of the smartest, one of the most articulate, if jeb decided to run, i think it would
2:32 pm
be hard for anyone to overwhelm him. he is in many ways, one of the best, most talented people we have in the republican party. i don't know that jeb wants to run. but i'll tell you this, if jeb wanted to run, he's one of those people that rise to the very top because of his shear brilliance and his ability to communicate it. >> chris: governor, we'll have to leave it there. thanks for your comments about this november and november coming up in a couple of years. it's always a pleasure to talk with you, sir. >> thank you, chris. >> chris: up next, the week that was for the president, the military and the war in afghanistan. we'll hear from our sunday panel after the break.
2:33 pm
2:34 pm
2:35 pm
>> behind us, we said as we begin a transition phase in which the afghan government is taking on more and more responsibility. >> chris: president obama saying his july 2011 time line for starting to pull troops from afghanistan won't mean a rush for the exits. it's time for our sunday group, bill crystal of the weekly standard. mora of national public radio, former state department official liz cheney, and juan williams also from national public radio. liz, before we begin, as i think most people know, your dad is in the hospital this weekend. there are reports he had an irregular heartbeat, that he now has fluid build-up. how is he doing and what can you tell us? >> he's feeling better and i'm hopeful he'll be released tomorrow, be able to go home. he's had coronary artery disease for as long as i can remember and i'm sure he'll deal with this situation the way he's dealt with everyone in the past,
2:36 pm
which is to work with his doctors and let me just say the doctors and the nurses at gw hospital are tremendous and make the wisest decision about the course going forward. but he did send his greetings to the whole panel this morning, even to juan. >> i wish him well. >> chris: most of the panel is wishing for a speedy recovery. tell your mom and dad we're all sending our greetings. >> i will. >> chris: all right. i never thought i'd see this. i never thought i would see this. here is the first line from bill crystal's editorial in the new weekly standard and there are folks who believe what you read. let us now praise barak obama, bill, what has gotten in to you? >> the president did the right thing and he deserves praise for accepting general mccrystal's resignation, which was necessary, i think. pointing to petraeus to take over command of the war in afghanistan. people haven't focused on extraordinary this is. i don't know how many times this has happened that a general stepped down the chain of
2:37 pm
command. general petraeus deserves a lot of praise for doing that, taking on a tough assignment. but president obama not only appointed petraeus, he made pretty clear that he understood there was a huge problem on the civilian side. i think he's going to move to correct that and also he moved away from the july 2011 date for the beginning of the withdrawal. in his speech wednesday, when he announced petraeus, he never said the word, deadline, timetable, or july 2011. when asked about it thursday, we saw that on the clip, he now calls it a transition phase. i think he's basically going to move as far as he can without explicitly contradicting himself to take that burden off the back of general petraeus as he attempts to win the war. >> i don't think that he can officially repudiate the time line, but we know -- >> chris: why not? >> i don't think he can because he said it and i think -- but i do think that there will be a defacto repudiation on the time line and secretary gates and
2:38 pm
general petraeus said it will be conditions based. and i think the trick for the president is that he has to send a message to the afghan leadership, number one, that they shouldn't hunker down waiting for us to leave, 'cause that's the wrong situation and also you don't want all the taliban and also all our potential supporters to be hungering down waiting for us to leave 'cause they don't think we're going to be around to provide them security. on the other hand, we don't want to say to karzai, we'll be your security blanket forever and ever. so they've tried to strike a balance. the democrats in congress didn't want to give the president an open ended commitment. i think this week made it clear by choosing petraeus, he has really reaffirmed his commitment to the strategy that petraeus and mccrystal and others laid out and i can't see as a practical matter how he could leave in july of 2011 if afghanistan looks like it's going to go into chaos. >> chris: liz, does bill crystal have it right with the
2:39 pm
appointment of petraeus and the comments he made that we showed about no rush for the exits in july of 2011 and late this week, are you as convinced as bill is that the president is all in on afghanistan? >> i think that bill is right, that the president did the right thing and that the president deserves credit. i think he unfortunately had to relieve mccrystal. he was a tremendous general and did tremendous things in iraq when the entire story of iraq is told, i think he'll get the credit he deserves there with the special forces. he had to be replaced, however, and petraeus is the right person for the job. i did think the president's speech announcing the change was a good speech. now, i don't think that we know for sure that he's all in because petraeus can't do it alone. if you don't have the changes in the civilian leadership you talked about in your interview segment this morning, it will be very difficult to get this done. eichenberry, for example, has two critical audiences. >> chris: carl eichenberry is the ambassador to afghanistan. >> right. this is true of ambassador
2:40 pm
holbrook, too. they've got to work with the afghan government and the military command. now both of those relationships are strained. i do think, however, where i differ with bill is i think he has the president must completely and explicitly repudiate the july 2011 deadline. the problem is that we sit here in washington and talk about the nuances of his language, as long as that deadline is out there, the pakinstanis and the afghans hear it's a deadline, that he's not all in, that we're not in until we're able to prevail, i think that deadline has to go. >> chris: juan? >> i'm a little taken aback. i don't understand why anybody would want the president to repudiate his deadline. we are ten years into this 30 years war. it's going badly. if you look at what the strategy is, we're six months into this 18 month strategy, it's not going well. kandahar is not going well. the relationship with karzai is terrible. karzai's government is dysfunctional, it's erratic, can't trust them to do anything. at the centerpiece of the general's strategy, both general
2:41 pm
mccrystal and general petraeus think that we have to win the confidence of the afghan people and key to doing that is a reliable partner in terms of the afghan government. the goal here is not nation building. that's not our goal as americans. our goal is to stop people from attacking us as they did on 9-11. what that means is that we have a strong afghan government that can put pressure on al-qaeda and the same thing in pakistan, that they can pressure al-qaeda. if we're not doing that, i think we're just running -- following the path of the russians and others who have been in afghanistan and who failed. >> chris: bill, that does bring up the point i wanted to get to, which is whatever the president's commitment is and the fact that david petraeus, i guess the most honored and most respected general of this generation in america is now going to be in charge, can we win in afghanistan? >> sure, we can. we can succeed and we can have acceptable outcome in afghanistan that would secure the united states and would help secure the region since we do not want pakistan to fall to jihaddists either.
2:42 pm
>> chris: but karzai is still karzai. >> karzai is still karzai and the country is a mess and going to remain a mess, but it can be a lot safer mess or more dangerous mess and that's not a trivial thing. we can win if we have real leadership here. i agree with liz that it would be better if the president ultimately repudiates that july 2011 date. we'll see if he does or not. but i think he can walk away from it. he does need to show leadership. what was striking is even based on what he did in the last few days with senator feinstein on the show, she's not been an advocate for a really strong stance towards afghanistan, but now with the president saying he's all in, senator feinstein, a democrat from california, said, look, petraeus has to be given the chance to win and that means being given the right kind of civilian support and having this burden of the deadline lifted off him. >> i think with obama's leadership here, we can do in afghanistan what we did with president bush's leadership in iraq. >> i want to say, you're saying have an unlimited commitment to nation building in afghanistan by the american government? that's what you're saying?
2:43 pm
>> no. >> limited equipment to defeating the taliban and al-qaeda. >> the problem with the deadline is, the president seems to believe that having a deadline means that you'll convince the afghan forces they have to stand up by then or else we'll leave. but that presume -- but that prom presumes that the issue of them standing up is an issue of will and it may well be that it's an issue of capacity, that they don't have the capacity to stand up. if the stakes in afghanistan, the mission in afghanistan are as i believe they are, critically important to the national security of the nation, then you've got to have a situation where you say we will be there to prevail and our afghan allies can count on us and our enemies ought to fear us and not think they can wait for us to leave. >> chris: panel, we have to take a break. when we come back, president obama meets with other world leaders of the g-20 summit and is a big difference of opinion. our panel will settle the argument in a moment.
2:44 pm
2:45 pm
2:46 pm
2:47 pm
>> there are going to be differentiated responses between the two countries because of our different positions, but we are aiming at the same direction, which is long-term sustainable growth which puts people to work. >> chris: president obama at the g8 summit noting the difference between not only the u.s. and britain, but with much of europe about the best economic policy going forward. we're back now with our panel. so bill, sharp disagreement on the international stage, scared by the debt crisis in greece, a number of our european allies, like germany, like britain, like france, are all talking about severe austerity monday, increasing taxes to tri to reduce the deficits and debt in their country. on the other hand, president obama and the u.s. really kind of out alone on a limb saying
2:48 pm
no, the global recovery is too fragile and we got to continue with more stimulus spending and we just did a news headline according to german chancellor, the g-20 leaders have agreed to cut deficits in half by 2013. so what do you make of this difference of opinion? >> i think that agreement was actually the canadian prime minister's proposal. canada is to our north, a similar country, 3.5%, the deficit of gdp. ours is 10%. they're growing twice as fast as we are. they are pursuing more responsible fiscal policies. the one thing unfortunately that president obama does agree with the europeans on is he wants to raise taxes. he doesn't want to cut spending, which is foolish awful. some policies are not more westful federal spend challenge requires taking on more debt. they're not imposing higher taxes, health care bill, deregulation and financial reform bill, the new taxes in
2:49 pm
the financial reform bill on the economy. i think the president is right in one sense. we can't just be for it. we have to be concerned about growth. >> chris: do you think that -- what's your sense of this, mara? are the europeans taking their foot off the accelerator too fast in terms of spending cuts and tax increases? does that endanger the global recovery? >> it might, but the europeans are in a different situation than we are. they have the bopped markets on their backs right now. we have a little more breathing room. they have a worst debt problem than we do right now. they have to. they don't have is a choice. i mean, being fiscally responsible is kind of a prerewe can sit for growth and getting people to invest in your country. to issue a statement saying we're all going to cut our deficits in half by 2013, if all of our countries, including the u.s., had a plan to do that, that would give the bond markets a lot of confidence and that would be okay. maybe we would have breathing room to do short term stimulus. but the fact is that the
2:50 pm
practical matter, the president can't stimulate the economy anymore because congress is unable to pass deficit spending. even $35 billion to extend unemployment benefits has hit a brick wall in the senate because the american people now put the deficit and spending in debt, whatever you want to call it, as one of their top issues. second only to jobs and the economy above even terrorism. so i think the politics of all of this are really changing. >> chris: i was going to say, liz, one of the develops this week that makes the president, his case much harder to argue on the international stage is that this week he was unable to get more spending for jobless benefits, for aid to states through the u.s. senate. pretty remarkable. >> i think it is remarkable that you've got a situation where even his own party has lost some appetite for the kind of spending binge that this president seems to be on. >> chris: in the last bill, only one democrat voted against the
2:51 pm
president that was ben nelson of nebraska. all the other democrats voted for it. but he's having a problem. >> i'm all for pointing out that most democrats actually are not being fiscally responsible. but having said that, i think it really is remarkable to pause for just a minute and think about what we're facing and what we've seen this week, to have european governments having finally realized they have no choice but to clean up their own economic messes and to have at the same time that they are putting in place austerity measures, the president of the united states basically showing up and trying to discourage it saying, no, no, spend, spend, spend. the other thing you had happen this week was the chairman of the business round table, which has long been political ally of barak obama's, stand up and basically say, we got a problem here and the policies that this president is putting in place are harming our ability in the private sector to grow the economy and create jobs. i think that you are getting very close to situations where the president's economic policies are becoming a national security threat to the country. i think that you will see that
2:52 pm
play out very clearly in the elections in november. people focused not just from a political standpoint on getting more republicans, but electing people who are willing to stand up and stop what seems to be an illogical spending binge. >> chris: liz's remarks about this being a national security threat might sound inflammatory, but mullen got up this week and said he thought the biggest threat to our national security was debt. >> without a doubt because we have a large defense budget and how are you going to pay for all the wars, the never ending wars if you don't have the money? i'm surprised to hear liz and bill crystal say, europe is a model now for, you know, smart economic behavior. they're in worst trouble than we're in. so they should be use steer and they have to regain the confidence of the bond market. >> chris: should we be austere? >> i'm all for that, but it's not started with this president. goodness gracious. the big debt was run up by the
2:53 pm
last president. >> it's not a partisan issue. >> it's not a partisan issue, so stop picking on obama about it. >> stop spending. >> you can't stop spending right now. when you look at the rate of growth that this economy has, you say you know what, this is pretty shallow for a recovery. for us to risk at this moment that recovery because we start pointing at people getting nervous nelllys, why would you care about some family -- >> chris: wait, wait. our audience hates it when everybody talks at once. >> let me finish my point. >> chris: no. let mara go. >> look, stopping extension of unemployment benefits bill is not going to solve the depp sit problem. it's a symbolic move. now, if you really want to solve the structural deficit problem, which is what's going to have to happen, republicans are going to have to change their position, which they currently adopted that you can't touch a hair on medicare's head, which they adhered to through the whole health care debate. and everybody wants the deficit to be cut and wants spending to
2:54 pm
stop until it's about some program that they like. these are big problems. the republicans are in a perfect position right now. they can stop everything and say we don't want to spend another dime of deficit dollars -- dime of deficit, but at the same time, we're not going to try to deal with the unemployment situation and then when it's still bad, they'll -- >> chris: let me finish one other subject. looks like congress is going to pass this week a sweeping new set of financial regulations to try allegedly to prevent another financial melt down like we saw in september of 2008. good idea, bad idea? >> i think it's a bad bill and it was done in the middle of the night and 2,000 pages and senator dodd, the main author of the bill, says he doesn't know everything in it and that includes $20 billion tax smuggled in in the middle of the night on bags and hedge funds that it's going to be a tax on investors. i am not simply for austerity. i am for growth. if you want growth, you've got to encourage businesses to
2:55 pm
invest. 1 1/2 trillion dollars of cash that american companies have is on the side lines right now. they are being discouraged for investing that money because they are not confident they will have a friendly investment climate and i'm afraid this bill doesn't help in that regard. >> chris: let me ask you and i'm going to give you the last word. let me ask the question, which is you talk about this was too dr. conian on the financial firms, in fact, all the financial stocks went up after they saw this. they seemed to think this was something they could do business with. >> the rich never get hurt in these deals. they just want almost open playing field possible. i understand, but they also have to understand this is an era of sacrifice and they have to understand that they were the ones who made tremendous mistakes that led us into this financial collapse. so there should be some increase regulation and that basically is all the bill is asking for. i just think they always want more and more of a free hand and what have we seen come of it? damage. now even the republicans are blocking things like unemployment insurance and extension of benefits for the
2:56 pm
basic social safety net. >> chris: juan, it's time to go. >> do we have to go? >> chris: don't forget to check out the latest edition of panel plus where our group here continues the discussion on our web site, fox news sunday.com. we promise we'll posted video before noon eastern time. up next, we hear from -- in the country! [ male announcer ] when stress gives you heartburn with headache. alka-seltz gives you relief fast. [ low male ] plop, plop. [ high male ] fizz, fizz.
2:57 pm
and get this year's colors up on the wall...this year. let's get better prices... anbetter paint. let's break out the drop cloths, rollers, brushes, and tape. let'start small. then go big. no matt what the budget. and when we're done, let's take a bow. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get $5 off any one-gallon can of any behr or den paint. ...
2:58 pm
i got an egg [pop] i got gum a kazoo a candy necklace for forty cents, i got one of these [pop] a stamp helium fabric softener [pop] lipstick two pills a day is what it takes to stay alive if you're hiv positive. those pills cost about forty cents a day. >> chris: time for some comments you posted to our blog wallace watch. last week's discussion over
2:59 pm
renewed discussion over the growing deficit. one wrote. >> why is it every time conservatives ask the bring up cutting spending liberals say you'll have to lay off police and teachers? why not lay off nonessential bureaucrats. mur yell sent this. >> chris: please keep your comments coming. you can find us fox news sunday.com. we'll see you next fox news sunday.